Golden Gate Park

Insufficient information and poor-quality photo. Neutrality (talk) 21:25, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Tuberculosis

Totally inadequate lead section (only one sentence) and overwhelming TOC. These two items are specifically mentioned in Ireland Information Guide:What is a featured article. My attempt to fix these issues were reverted. --mav

Mention on its talk that it's in danger of removal for these specific reasons. See if its ardent defenders change their minds then - David Gerard 22:53, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Done. --mav

Hi, I was not aware of the guidelines, I'm a Wiki newbie - less than a month now. mav wrote (increased size of lead section and decreased size of TOC) without stating why. If a reason was stated then we all can work together to solve the problem. It would also be better to bring up concerns on the Talk page rather than making the changes yourself as older inaccurate information was added back to the lead section. Also, the removal of the headers also removed the natural breaks the writers intended for the readers and made some sections seem too long. I did not make any changes to mav's headers. Someone else added the headers back again who probably also did not know about the guidelines. Seems it is more about not knowing why things were done rather than fighting against what mav had done. I did not see anything on the Talk page either. Seems that the FA of the day gets a lots of copyedits and vandals, so things get lost on the history page. I have been updating this article for the past few weeks and I was not even aware that it was up for a Feature Article of the Day! I would have asked for a postponement had I known as I am still working on it trying to edit it better and keep it under 32K. I should be done with edits in a few days. I've increased the lead section to 3 paragraphs as recommended. I need some more guidelines about the TOC. It's less than 1 screenful on my monitor, out of about 20 screenfuls for the total article. Is the TOC for another FA - SARS OK? What is the ideal length? What hints do you have? Could someone add links for the subhead and TOC on the FA guidelines page? Or point me in the right direction? Let me know whatever I can do to help meet the guidelines. We are all here working together to make Ireland Information Guide the best. Thanks, Petersam 08:42, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've also left messages concerning TOC guidelines at Ireland Information Guide:Help_desk#Guidelines_for_Table_of_Contents as well as at Ireland Information Guide_talk:What_is_a_featured_article#Table_of_contents_TOC_guidelines. Petersam 10:19, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Operation Market Garden

It lacks a picture and the 'battle box', I dont see any 'sources' section as well. Hopefully this can be easily fixed, but in its present form it is not up to our current standards, I am afraid. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:21, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

war elephant

Jumping on the "no elephants in FA" bandwagon, this recent main-page feature is remarkably low on detail for such a colorful subject, needs copyediting and subsectioning, and needs deeper linking to species and military articles. I have suggested it for Peer Review, and think it should be removed from FA in the meanwhile. +sj+ 20:23, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

crushing by elephant

This article became featured on March 14, 2004 then Jrincayc edited the article on July 23 with this note: "Removing about half of the article, due to lack of source information. See talk." Now that it's about half of what it used to be, I doubt it should remain FA. -- ke4roh 11:57, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

Shame, but if the content stays out, I guess I'll have to support removal. Ambi 00:40, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Damn - that was such a good article too. But I must agree with de-listing as well. --mav 06:02, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What's left is still a decent article, but not quite worthy of featured status. --Michael Snow 18:15, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

History of the English penny

Article appears to have become the frontpage for a series since its featuring - no longer contains much information at all. The series at large is great, but that specific article, not so much. Snowspinner 16:26, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

• Remove from fac or re-consolidate the series into one article. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:02, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • This is so the wrong way to go. We should not re-consolidate to satisfy the whims of the featured article process. It was separated for a reason (its size). But it seems mad that when some text is spread across one long page it is worth featuring but when spread across several it is suddenly not. The obvious solution is to feature sets of articles in their own section. Pcb21| Pete 08:57, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I implemented this - what do you think? Pcb21| Pete 09:03, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • I think it's not going to get used enough to be worth having as a policy. As for this article, I think that it shouldn't be featured. Not every good thing in Ireland Information Guide needs to be a featured article. Indeed, not every good thing in Ireland Information Guide needs a medal at all. Snowspinner 12:39, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
        • If past experience is anything to go by, things do get used even if initially you think there is not that much scope for them (indeed FAC and FARC are themselves examples of this). What harm is it doing? Note of as now, the article isn't featured specificially, but the series of which it is part is featured. Pcb21| Pete 13:00, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support removal. There's problems with this article even a series; the "root" article doesn't introduce the "sub articles". There should be a lot more pictures and illustrations. — Matt 17:35, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• support removal. It really looks terrible, now. And article is an article. A featured article without information, but a series of links? -Pedro 13:44, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support removal. Simply moving text to other articles and saying it is then part of a series has got to be one of the most useless and brain dead ways to split an article that there is. Good sized summaries should be left for each new article created. See Ireland Information Guide:Summary style. Peerage had the same problem but was fixed. --mav 22:45, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support removal, on the article's merits (not on its division of text). It was a borderline case to begin with. And, for the record, support use of Ireland Information Guide:Long article layout to combine that series into a coherent read, including a proper summary on the first page. +sj+ 20:21, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

L. Paul Bremer

this article is so short that it is more a stub than a featured article. how did it become a featured article at all??? just make a comparison with some other featured biography Avala 19:00, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Keep - David Gerard 19:11, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • please explain Avala 19:25, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• It's substantially bigger than a stub; is there more that could be said about this individual? — Matt 09:01, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. The comment that this is a stub is extreme hyperbole. DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:40, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • of course it is not a stub but it doesn`t look like featured eitherAvala|★ 14:01, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Similar length to Horatio Nelson (which has an atrocious lead section). The "Trivia" section could be expanded upon, but I don't think that's enough to support delisting. Keep. Johnleemk | Talk 11:58, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• On second thought, SUPPORT REMOVAL. Hades itself may be under ice by the time his book comes out, Y.B. 8/20/2004
• Support removal. It doesn't have good external links, crucial to evaluating the accuracy and NPOV of a bio, doesn't discuss third parties' vies of Bremer's tenure in any of his posts, is shorter on detail than the standard FA bio, and could use better subsectioning & layout. On the other hand, seeing this article makes me feel bad about putting war elephants up for removal. +sj+ 20:27, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• It's still here. There should be more written about the Coalition Provisional Authority instead. Y.B. 8/24/2004

Zionism

Zionism is protected from editing, disputed and was recently featured on the main page but removed. If we can't have it on the main page, we can't have it as a featured article. ✏ Sverdrup 10:40, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If we can't have it on the main page, we can't have it as an FA -- I firmly disagree. FA and main-page featuring are very different bars. Every brilliant bit of prose should be honored as an FA; featuring something on the main page requires a bit more consensus about its quality and neutrality. That said, I also think controversial arts should be featurable on the Main Page, perhaps with day-long protection and a designated admin editor to make any urgent changes. +sj+